Search results matching tags 'cumulative updates' and 'documentation'http://sqlblog.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?o=DateDescending&tag=cumulative+updates,documentation&orTags=0Search results matching tags 'cumulative updates' and 'documentation'en-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)Some updates to SQL Server 2008 SP1 CU4 you may not have noticedhttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/11/08/some-updates-to-sql-server-2008-sp1-cu4-you-may-not-have-noticed.aspxSun, 08 Nov 2009 20:18:00 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:18653AaronBertrand<p>Back on September 21/22, Microsoft released its most recent cumulative updates for SQL Server 2008.&nbsp; For RTM, this was <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973601" title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973601" target="_blank">Cumulative Update #7</a> (10.00.1818), and for SP1, this was <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973602" title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973602" target="_blank">Cumulative Update #4</a> (10.00.2734). <br></p><p>However, if you have requested the SP1 CU #4 hotfix download since November 4th, the <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=973602&amp;kbln=en-us" title="http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=973602&amp;kbln=en-us" target="_blank">download page</a> has some new files up there, with "_Updated_Ref_KB_976761" in the name:</p><blockquote><p><img src="http://sqlblog.com/files/folders/18652/download.aspx" border="1" height="58" width="550">&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p>When you download these CU4 files, you will end up with a build number (10.00.2740) that is not documented in either of the above KBs<strike>, and the referenced KB (<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/976761" title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/976761" target="_blank">967671</a> - currently yielding Bing's version of a 404) has not been published at the time of this writing</strike>.&nbsp; As Chris pointed out, <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/976761" title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/976761" target="_blank">KB 976761</a> appears to have been published today.&nbsp; Though, a separate <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=976761" title="http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=976761" target="_blank">download page</a> has been available all along, in addition to being able to download the new files from the original CU #4 download page.</p><p>Notice that the original KB for CU #4 (<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973602" title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/973602" target="_blank">973602</a>) still says that the version is 10.00.2734:</p><blockquote><p><img src="http://sqlblog.com/files/folders/18659/download.aspx" border="1" height="338" width="667"><br></p></blockquote><p>But then when you download the file with the KB #976761 designation, you get this:</p><blockquote><p><img src="http://sqlblog.com/files/folders/18658/download.aspx" border="0" height="533" width="419">&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p>And as expected, when you apply the update to your SQL Server instance, you get @@VERSION = 10.0.2740.0. <br></p><p>My question is: what kind of fixes were so important to quietly sneak these updates onto the CU #4 download page mid-stream?&nbsp; My feeling is these should be separate.&nbsp; The next CU should be coming out within the next several weeks, if they are going to stick to the same ~60 day schedule.&nbsp; So I am curious what drives the priority to push the files to users before they push documentation explaining what the new files are.<br></p><p>I am sure this is just another case of the binary updates preceding the KB updates and other notifications (e.g. from the <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlreleaseservices/" title="http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlreleaseservices/" target="_blank">Release Services blog</a>).&nbsp; Personally, I think that the documentation updates and announcements should come out *before* they post the files; that would cause far less confusion.&nbsp; What makes this scenario difficult is that the download page does not give users enough information about what these files are.&nbsp; So if the 2740 build includes fixes that I don't know how to test, how do I know whether or not that should be one of the files I download?&nbsp; What if I have tested CU #4 (10.00.2734) in my labs, and I tell the servicing team to apply CU #4 to production, and 10.00.2740 is the update they download?&nbsp; This can be quite problematic, I'm sure you'll agree. <br></p><p>This is a relatively isolated situation.&nbsp; But in general, I think the download pages need a lot more supporting documentation.&nbsp; I know the purpose was for self-service, and it is kind of a contradiction that we want more control over what fixes we get without having PSS hold our hands, yet we still want more guidance from PSS.&nbsp; But in my case, I still don't know what a "SQL_Server_2008_SP1_Cumlative_Update_4_RRB2ClickOn" file is, and whether or not I should download it and apply it to my servers.&nbsp; With such a long file name allowed, why make the important part so cryptic?&nbsp; (Naming of the file is obviously a choice made by a human; system-generated code would have spelled "Cumulative" correctly.)&nbsp; Users have had similar questions about files on the download page, such as SNAC and SharePoint... while their naming is a little more intuitive to those of us who have been applying updates to our environments for a while, this isn't true for everyone.</p><p>A user on Connect ("ManServ") noticed this yesterday, and filed an item on Connect (<a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=508983" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=508983" target="_blank">#508983</a>).&nbsp; Hopefully I will have commented there by the time you get to it.&nbsp; I realize that if the situation were reversed, we would just be bitching about the opposite thing: "You're talking about build 2740; why can't I download it already!?"&nbsp; While both are equally annoying for PSS, I prefer the latter in terms of end users.&nbsp; At least in that case, they are not downloading the files before there is any documentation around them; maybe they could focus on reading that documentation while waiting for the files to be pushed to the download servers.<br></p><p>I really wish I had noticed this at PASS, instead of right after getting home.&nbsp; I actually had a conversation with Bob Ward during the conference, where he asked me how they can make this servicing model better.&nbsp; The only constructive criticism I could come up with on the spot was that, when they are supporting two branches, and a fix makes it into one CU and not the other, document which fixes are only in one branch, and why.&nbsp; This should be a companion KB article that is linked, in the case of SQL Server 2008, to both the RTM and the SP1 KB articles for the Cumulative Updates released at that time.&nbsp; The way I currently figure this out is to build a table of both sets of fixes, and then figure out where the rows are not equal (you've seen me do this before, <a href="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/07/22/more-cumulative-updates-available-for-sql-server-2008.aspx" title="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/07/22/more-cumulative-updates-available-for-sql-server-2008.aspx" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/02/20/sql-server-2005-comparing-sp2-cu-12-and-sp3-cu-2.aspx" title="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/02/20/sql-server-2005-comparing-sp2-cu-12-and-sp3-cu-2.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>).&nbsp; It would be great if I could get that information from the source, however if I were to rank this, it would appear below the problem above, where files make it to end users' systems before there is even a document describing what those files are and what they fix.<br></p>